Mattz v. Arnett

PETITIONER: Mattz
RESPONDENT: Arnett
LOCATION: Allegheny County District Court

DOCKET NO.: 71-1182
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 412 US 481 (1973)
ARGUED: Mar 27, 1973 / Mar 28, 1973
DECIDED: Jun 11, 1973

ADVOCATES:
Harry R. Sachse - for United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court
Lee J. Sclar - for petitioner
Roderick Eugene Walston - for respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Mattz v. Arnett

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 27, 1973 in Mattz v. Arnett

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 28, 1973 in Mattz v. Arnett

Warren E. Burger:

-- this morning in 71-1182, Mattz against Arnett.

Mr. Sclar.

Lee J. Sclar:

Mr. Chief Justice, I have completed my --

Warren E. Burger:

I hope you have reserved some time for rebuttal I believe, have you?

Lee J. Sclar:

Yes, I have.

Yes.

Warren E. Burger:

Very well.

Mr. Walston, you may proceed.

Roderick Eugene Walston:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

I just received the Government’s AC brief in this case last Friday and their brief prompted me to try to locate some additional information which I succeeded in doing.

I am going to refer to this information during the course of my oral argument and it may well be that the Court would like me to also cite the sources where this information can be located.

Now, I will be happy to do that, but at the same time, it might be more convenient for this Court if I am permitted to file a very short brief after this argument is concluded setting forth this additional sources of information.

I leave it to the Court to decide that that question and I’ll happily comply with whichever matter of the Court wishes.

Warren E. Burger:

But perhaps, the first alternative would be sufficient, but we won’t confine you to that.

Roderick Eugene Walston:

Okay, fine, thank you.

William H. Rehnquist:

Mr. Walston, let me ask you a question before you begin.

I noticed that you refer the several maps in your brief in the Government and your opponent referred to several maps.

How many of these maps where placed in evidence in the trial court?

Roderick Eugene Walston:

None, Your Honor.

The -- we offered those maps merely to show that the reservation status of the Klamath River Reservation is unsettled at the present time.

But, I don’t think that those --

William H. Rehnquist:

When you have a case involving maps, you offer him an evidence and this probably goes to your opponent’s case as much as to yours.

You offer them an evidence to the trial court.

You authenticate them in some way.

You may have expert testimony as to the how credible they are.

I have some difficulty with the idea that this Court should simply consider a bunch of maps that were never offered to the trial court.

Roderick Eugene Walston:

That’s probably true with respect to most maps Justice Rehnquist, but one of the maps that we referred to, in 1909, map was contained in a the Presidential Proclamation which is published in the official governmental reports, and I think that map can be referred to as an official federal document.

The other maps where simply geologic survey maps that I simply located by my own means and I would agree that those are not properly before the Court.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Well, what’s this?

Roderick Eugene Walston:

That’s a map that was offered by Mr. Sclar for illustrative purposes only.